We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Procedural Posture: Patentee appealed ITC’s final determination that respondents did not violate 19 U.S.C. § 1337 because the products at issue were not covered by appellant’s asserted patents. CAFC affirmed.

Claim Construction: The CAFC rejected appellant’s argument that the ITC incorrectly read several limitations into the claim because the asserted patents incorporated by reference priority patents whose claim language demonstrate clear and unmistakable disavowals that that limited the scope of the asserted claims. As the ITC correctly construed the claims and noninfringement was conceded based on this claim construction, the ITC’s determination of no violation was affirmed.

Reyna, concurring:

Claim Construction: The ITC erred in holding the patentee to a priority date before construing the claims, thereby giving improper weight to statements regarding claim scope in earlier patents, because the full scope of the claims must be decided prior to determining whether there is entitlement to the priority date of an earlier application. However, the construction reached was correct because the relevant intrinsic record contains clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope.

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

"This is a very good resource and I appreciate receiving it everyday. Each newsletter has a great deal of content and the daily feed allows you to 'pace' yourself. The content is relevant to the areas that I address and the articles are written by counsel who are very experienced in these areas and can communicate in a meaningful and effective way."